Wait I think I get it now. The mistake we might all be making, is still thinking in the terms of the real world. Now the argument before stated this "Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. After all, tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people", since the entire concept of the LSAT is being a persuasive argument and not explicitly relying on reality, I can still ask what if the tiger is not a mammal? Just right there, I weakened the argument in terms of the LSAT and not reality, now let's go further. After they include the assumptions that Tigers are mammals, that aggressiveness causes injuries, therefore not all mammals can be pets, it strengthens the argument yes, however, still makes it weak at the same time. I can even include another assumption, but dogs are kind so why is every mammal not suitable? contrary to the Disney argument which explicitly gave us 2 choices either he proportionated the goats or had to prostate through the alter, we had no links to assume anything else, making is a stronger argument. This is making me feel like I am going crazy

Now I am confused. The previous lessons stated about the form of validity and not to think about the true reality. Now at first, I understood on why the tiger argument, was not that strong. since it stated tigers are aggressive, so not every mammal is suitable to be a pet. the word every generalizes every pet, however we only had one example which was a tiger, and someone would ask, well what about a hamster or a dog, which are mammals as well, now that weakens the argument. However, I am confused how including the assumption that tigers are mammals, strengthens the argument when in fact just explicitly generalizes mammals as a whole to not be suitable as pets?

The Disney argument is the strongest due to the direct links of the premises supporting the conclusions, please do remember to not overthink it but rather what is in the texts.

Teacher: The principal found his office trashed. Sam and Mickey always trash offices when they are frustrated. Sam and Mickey were frustrated with the principal last week, thus Sam and Mickey trashed the principal's office.

So, the word but does not always explicitly mean a conclusion, however the word "thus" always indicates a conclusion? Which conclusion indicators always change their form then?

So, from what I gathered in this topic, we have to concentrate on the argument itself and to not think about the real reality, but rather to think about the concept of the argument itself reality.

God speed everyone. LET US NOT LET FEAR TAKE CONTROL!!

If Troy was born in Florida, then he is American. Troy was born in America, therefore he is American

Bruh I am being cooked

Good God, this question type is by far the worst and it's killing me.